[Mark_F]

"It's a bit too susceptible to the whims of Mother Nature".

An argument put forward by someone when comparing two courses, and one of his reasons for this particular course being the lesser of two.

 

[Jim Sweeney]

Huh? LAst I knew golf was an outside game.

[Mark_F]

Jim,

Exactly.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark & Jim,

Without knowing the two courses he was comparing it still could be a quite valid point.

For example, many golf courses in Texas where the land is flat forever are effected by wind, so much so that most Texas pros inevitably are good "wind players." Yet even as windy as it gets down among the cows and oil, the links of Scotlands coast and places such as Pebble Beach and Shinnecock are at the mercy of far more unpredictable wind conditions... or to put it another way, they are many times more atb the mercy of the weather.

I would like to know what aspect of the weather he was refering to in comparing the two specific courses.

[Doug Ralston]

A friend of mine in Kansas tells of a rather stormy day when he was playing. He claims he hit a high drive, when a tornado formed right where his ball was flying. Said it went right to left and carried the ball a little over a mile away and dropped it into a field. Took him 17 shots to get back to the course [no ob stakes, I guess] and anoth 3 to hole out for a perky 21!

Apocryphal? Who knows ...... weather, afterall, IS unpredictable *inno*

Doug

[Joe Hancock]

My course floods from time to time because it is in a river valley....I suppose it is a vald statement....

Joe

[Tim Gavrich]

Newport National was pretty darned unplayable last Sunday with constant winds of more than 50 mph...

I'd agree with the statement.  I think that the worse the weather gets, the more excessive the luck factor.  In almost every tournament, normal conditions reward justly those who play best.  In bad weather, things can get obscenely skewed very easily.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It's a bit too susceptible to the whims of Mother Nature".

An argument put forward by someone when comparing two courses, and one of his reasons for this particular course being the lesser of two.

Mark,

Wouldn't it depend upon the category in which they were being compared ?

Short seasons can be a liability if your conversation was geared to availability and year round play.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Yes, you are quite right with your example.

Fortunately we here in Australia don't suffer from short seasons as you do in parts of the USA, although the damn flies are occasionally so bad as to make golf a winter sport, at least for wusses like me.

The quote is from an article George Peper wrote for Links Magazine a while ago when comparing Pebble Beach and Pacific Dunes.

It was one of the reasons he gave as to why Pebble Beach was marginally superior in his eyes, but always struck me as quite odd.

Royal Porthcawl and Barnbougle Dunes are two courses I have played which can be the recipient of some quite violent weather, but I wouldn't have said such diminished the courses in any way.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Jim Sweeney]

Sorry guys, I still don't get it.

How would one build a course that was less susceptible to the weather?

Now, maybe one would get less enjoyment from playing a course that is, say, in an area known for wind, or rain, or cold, or whatever meteorological condition is generally present in a certain area.

So generally fair conditions may be a reason to enjoy playing in a particular location; but if that were one's prime reason for preferring one course to another, wouldn't he believe that Torrey Pines is the finest golf course in the world?

Regardless, the comment that was the motivation for this thread is a little odd, given that it was made by someone who retired to Scotland. Would he say that the course across the street from his apartment is less desireable to play than, say, almost any course in Florida, because the weather is, on average, less hospitable?

(For those who do not know, Mr. Peper keeps house across from St. Andrews Old.)

And one additional thought, if I may: What if the course being scrutnized was designed with the prevailing weather in mind? In other words, the course was built the way it was because of the dominant weather pattern? Was this not the case at Bandon? I haven't been there, and I don't want to, therefore, seem presumptuous, but from what I've heard from many on this site, that was precisely the case. Pebble, on the other hand, though the oceanfront was saved for the golf course, was still a real estate development.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I've heard that statement more than once in the past.  In fact, I think someone cited it within the past 3-4 days as a reason Ballyneal is better than Pacific Dunes -- obviously they've never seen a tornado blow past Ballyneal.

George obviously doesn't remember the end of the Open in 1972 or 1992 when nobody could hold a green.  You can get the same coastal temperature inversion and late afternoon winds at Pebble Beach in the summer as you get in Bandon, but the former wasn't designed with that in mind.  However, it doesn't happen that often, so it's less likely for a visitor to see those conditions than in Bandon.

We've been fortunate enough to work in some of the windiest places in the world -- Bandon, Barnbougle, Lubbock, Holyoke; New Zealand and the Hamptons have their days, too.  If someone wants to consider that a design negative, that's their prerogative, but I certainly don't agree.

[BCrosby]

I think a far more serious criticism of a course would be the opposite of that statement.

"The course is immune to the whims of Mother Nature."

Given the extensive drainage and irrigation systems, overseeding, and hordes of maintenance staff standing by to attend to the consequences of every change in the weather, that statement comes close to being true of some new courses in the ATL area.

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

In Geoff's article on Imagination @ Golf Observer, he cites American golf as the culprit for many things.

This George Peper quote only prepetuates that pathos.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peper's article seemed fair to me, he closed with "Color me a confirmed Bandonista". It's easy to see how he came to his opinion about the elements as his caddie said the 25-30 mph winds, with gusts near 50, during his afternoon round  were "pretty average, about 5 or 6 on a scale of 10".

The full article is here:  http://tinyurl.com/yfvst8

Meaningless temp. and rainfall chart  
Avg.
High Temp  J    F   M    A   M    J     Jy    A    S     O    N   D
      PB       60  61  61  64  64  66  68  68  71  70  64  58
      PD       54  56  56  58  61  64  67  68  68  63  57  54  
Avg.
Low Temp  
      PB       44  44  45  45  47  50  51  52  54  51  47  44
      PD       38  39  40  41  45  48  51  51  48  44  41  38.  
Avg.
Precip  J     F    M    A     M      J     Jy      A    S     O    N    D
PB     3.5/ 2.3/ 3.3/ 1.7/ 0.4/ 0.3/ 0.1/ 0.1/ 0.3/ 0.9 /2.8/2.8  
PD     9.2/ 7.8 /7.4 /4.7 /3.2 /1.6 /0.4 /0.9 /1.6 /3.9 /9.1/9.8  

[Jon Wiggett]

Guys,

it seems to me that the weather can only be taken into account when comparing two courses if on course becomes unplayable in a certain weather condition and the other not. You might say that a tree lined course is easier to play in a 50 mph wind than a more open links style course because the ball might be less affected, but does that make it a better course in the wind?
Where would this mentality lead us? Tree lined courses being considered poor in autumn because too many leaves are affecting play? Moorland courses and links every time the wind blows?

For me when judging the class of a course you need to look beyond the weather conditions and playing surface quality to see what the bones of the course are like.

[AndrewB]

I'd agree with the statement.  I think that the worse the weather gets, the more excessive the luck factor.  In almost every tournament, normal conditions reward justly those who play best.  In bad weather, things can get obscenely skewed very easily.

Sigh.  So, Tim, is correctly judging the effect of wind or rain (or whatever else mother nature can throw at you) on one's shot not as an important a skill as making a technically correct swing?  Is learning how to cope with difficult conditions that try you mentally (and emotionally when they start to affect your score) unimportant?  How do you define "normal conditions" and couldn't this increase in the "luck factor" be said about anything that makes the game more challenging?  Where do you draw the line?  At what you are used to and consider normal?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()